Circular Economy is logical, makes more environmental, economic and business sense

The ‘Circular Economy’ is a start-to-finish circular concept; hence it is not too difficult to imagine what the interpretation may indicate. It is an industrial economy, that rejects the traditional economic approach e.g. 'take-make-consume and dispose' pattern of growth, where degradation of environment by increased amount of waste are not an inevitable by-product. The Circular Economy concept is not new; it has been there for more than five decades. As Kenneth Ewart Boulding’s famous paper from 1966, the economics of the coming spaceship Earth, expressed the view that man will need to find his place in a cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material. Basically, our society will need to follow a circular pattern so that the resources can be use for a longer period of time. 

To date, traditional industrial economy has created enormous waste and its adverse effects on the environment are well known. The fight for a sustainable future was not on the agenda after the industrial revolution as the society wanted to move forward by creating wealth, more consumption and comfortable livings. The world population has rapidly multiplied in the last 50 years than ever before. Therefore, there is an urgent need to look for more recyclable and alternative materials. And, that is why the recycling and material flow lies at the heart of the Circular Economy concept, which has now become part and parcel of our fight for a sustainable future. It is not only the end of life of a product which is important but the design phase is even more important, for example 80% of a product’s environmental impact is locked in at the design stage. We need to use the right materials from a very early stage in the product development cycle.

However, developing new products with the right materials at design stage is just one of the pieces of the puzzle. The other equally important piece is the effective use of existing resources. Let us take a more realistic view to understand the importance of effective use of existing resources. Imagine for a moment that all the precious metals such as Gold, Silver, Platinum, Palladium, Copper, Nickel, and Aluminium have run out. Now, ask yourself a simple question - 'why did we not think about these precious materials before, which are used to make the computer circuit boards might run out one day? In order to prevent it, we should at least have invented a method where these metals would eventually come back to the production process to be used up again?' That is exactly what the circular economy concept is proposing to take on – a closed loop recycling, a process where post-consumption waste is collected, recycled and used to make new products.

There is clearly a business case for circular economy as a mean to resource efficiency and cost savings, effectively more sustainable growth, competiveness, less impact on environment and climate. It is a perfect marriage between environmental protection and making profits. A McKinsey study in 2013 estimated for 2030 the financial benefit of resource efficiency will be at around $3 trillion per year; 70-85 percent of this potential would be in developing countries." Just imagine the massive boost to the GDP by adding trillions to the developing countries’ economies. This is to say that the developing countries have more advantages compared to the developed countries. This is because their economies are not locked in the markets that would only follow the traditional linear economic models. That is to say, it will be easier to break and re-shape the economic models of the developing countries. 

Despite the growing acceptance for the Circular Economy, there are still many barriers and common misperceptions that exist. One of the biggest misperception is that, if we encourage people to re-use or keep their products for longer; then it would discourage sales. Hence profits will go down; effectively there will be no interests from the business communities. On the contrary, I think Circular Economy concept will drive the innovation more than ever - creating new type of products, businesses, markets and consequently create more jobs in the new green industries. However, consumers are the key group who need to understand the green economic transformation and its benefits for the present and the future generations. In my view, this is one of the biggest challenges ahead whether the consumers are prepared to buy the products made from recyclable and alternative materials. 

Finally, Corporations have a bigger role to play moving towards a Circular Economy compared to smaller businesses. Corporations have necessary funding to kick-start the transition and they are in a position to persuade their supply chains and other stakeholders to change their business models. A collective approach would certainly need to drive of change in the fight for a sustainable future. The Circular Economy is definitely the way forward. 

Rampal power plant: Using coal – same old, same old!

Coal’s dominant role in the electricity making is not a new phenomenon. For centuries, coal has been one of the main energy resources, but experiences have shown that burning coal is one of the dirtiest ways to produce electricity. Despite the damaging consequences of burning coals on human health and environment, the race is still on to build more coal-fired power plants particularly in the developing world. In order to meet the country’s growing energy demand, Bangladesh has also jumped on the bandwagon to possibly build a total of eight coal-fired power plants under the tenure of present government.

 

The proposed 1320 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Rampal upazila, situated just 14 kilometers north of the world's largest mangrove forest 'Sundarbans' – a UNESCO World Heritage site, has been in the center of huge controversy in recent years. Besides the political debates over constructing the power plant with partnership of India's state-owned National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), the root cause of the controversy is the potential environmental impacts of having a coal-fired power plant so close to the world’s largest mangrove forest and the local communities that live around.

 

The proposed power plant has a multi-dimensional impact upon the local biodiversity, environment and half-million people who depend on the mangrove forest, from the coal combustion, waste storage and heavy coal barge traffic by the sea and river estuaries. The local air would increasingly be toxic by burning coal, which usually produce gases e.g. Carbon dioxide (CO2), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and other chemical emissions e.g. Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb) & Cadmium (Cd). By mounting a taller flue-gas stack would disperse and dilute the exhaust pollutants but it wouldn't necessarily defuse it, hence the risk still remain that the pollutants would cause acid rain and gradually over time the soil and aquatic ecosystems would become more acidic, hence invariably have knock-on negative effects on the terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.

 

Varieties of solid (e.g. fly ash, boiler slag) and liquid (e.g. coal sludge) waste are to be produced. A typical 500 megawatt coal power plant creates more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smoke-stack scrubber each year. Therefore, the proposed 1320 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Rampal would produce ash and sludge more than double a typical 500 megawatt coal power plant would have been produced. The risk is genuinely higher where toxic substances in waste e.g. Arsenic (As), Mercury (Hg), Chromium (Cr), Cadmium (Cd) could contaminate local water surface and ground water.

 

We cannot ignore the potential environmental and economic costs that would incur on the local population and the aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. Undoubtedly, Bangladesh needs a major shift from the natural gas-based power plant to something more sustainable energy sources as there is a genuine fear that the existing gas reserve would run out within a decade. It is therefore necessary to pay a greater attention on the diversification of country’s energy sources. Instead of putting too much emphasis on coal fired power plant, Bangladesh should concentrate more on renewable energy sources, which has huge potential to establish a stronger presence in the country’s energy diversification strategy.

 

Since the first industrial revolution, our predecessor had to burn coal as they didn’t have much choice. But, we now have the knowledge, experiences and technical know-how that promote sustainable energy including renewable energy sources that we didn’t have back then. Bangladesh doesn’t need sleepwalking to the past mistakes that our predecessor did; instead the country can potentially leapfrog into more cleaner and sustainable future in order to fulfil the aspirations of the green industrial revolution.

 

Near sustainability at Jhenidah Cadet College

Jhenidah Cadet College (JCC) was established in 1963, and that is what makes it the second oldest cadet colleges in Bangladesh. It is located on 103 acres of land in the outskirts of a town called 'Jhenidah' in the South West of the country. Bangladesh was still a part of West Pakistan (modern-day Pakistan) when the college was established. The main goal was to build a school and college, which equivalent to the English version private boarding institutions. This will be where students would physically and mentally be prepared to join the country's Military Academy after completing their high school graduation. This provided, at very best, the equal opportunity for the local students and maintained the diversity and social cohesion, which in effect, promoted a social and economic enrichment. This has been a potent symbol of social responsibility of the JCC so far. I will touch upon some social responsibility initiatives by the Alumni organisation (i.e. Jhenidah Ex-Cadet Association - in short JEXCA), reserved for later discussion.

The highs and lows of being a cadet are still vivid in my mind after so many years. I have been one of the lucky ones who attended JCC, in fact, it engulfed almost my entire teenage years. Since my father worked there as a physics’ teacher, I lived in the campus for more than eleven years of my childhood before joining the college at age 12. One of my favourite memories from childhood in the campus is discovering the stunning natural surroundings. Also be drawn to the allure of the rare sense of serenity where I could often get away from the reality. I still marvel over how I spent countless hours wandering through the bushes, fearlessly running around barefoot on the ground infested with weeds, shrubs and prickly plants, and recklessly jumped into the canal water without thinking of the consequences. It’s hard to forget - I still cherish those wonderful days.

It was almost unthinkable to me then as a young boy but now it makes perfect sense that the gorgeous natural surroundings of the college campus has actually made JCC a perfect example of a natural carbon sink. It absorbs the traffic pollution that is created by the nearest busy motorway from Jessore to Kushtia district. Inside the campus boundary, all the residents live within the walking or cycling distance from their workplace hence the usage of vehicles (e.g. cars, vans, buses etc.) is minimal.Therefore the amount of usual traffic exhaust pollutants (e.g. NO2, SO2, carbon monoxide, Pb& heavy metals etc.) are negligible, as a result, it poses no real health risks for the local residents. The level of air pollution in the campus had (probably) never been tested, but, if it had been tested then the results would have showed far better outcomes than any European cities.

At JCC, the basic elements of sustainability have always existed between and within.The contexts of 'Think globally, act locally' (perhaps it has never been thought through the lenses of environmental perceptions), are to be seen in many aspects including the electricity and water supply, which are produced locally, in effect, it encourages in creating more local employments. There is a real potential to save money, be environmental friendly and self-sufficient in electricity if JCC start using the renewable energy technologies like solar panels & wind turbines and earn its place as the local and regional leader of renewables. Initially the electricity generated from the renewables could be used to light up some small places like the toilets, front and the back of the cadet dining hall, some of the rooms in the main offices where the bright lights are not always required. From the larger scale renewable installation, the surplus energy could potentially be supplied to the main grids or possibly lighting up some homes outside of the boundary walls. It would make a real difference on the lives of disadvantaged people.

Other areas, from supply chain and logistics to food production and the procurement are generally done with the local vendors and many of them practically depend on doing businesses with the JCC authority. In this aspect, JCC should encourage and promote in creating a socially and environmentally responsible supply chains, which eventually would help to create a sustainable society, however small-scale that might be. Also, need to encourage primarily the residents and other stakeholders to live low carbon lifestyle and purchasing local goods and services. 

The proper management of waste and recycling are the key components of environmental sustainability. Systematic collection, recycling and disposalof waste are still premature and sporadic at JCC and that is why I believe that there are immense opportunities to improve in the waste management areas within its boundaries. From the kerbside collectionto different types of recycling bins (e.g. plastics, papers, glass bottles, used clothes & shoes etc.) could be placed in some of the main points in the campus areas. The reusable clothes and shoes could be distributed among the poorest communities in the villages outside of the college boundaries and rest of the other reusable and recyclable materials could be sold to the local traders for low or no-cost basis.

Composting is a simple and an inexpensive way to transform the kitchen and garden waste into a nutrient rich fertiliser. Even the cadets could get their hands dirty making compost from the dining hall food waste when they carry out their gardening sessions. Moreover, awareness raising campaign focusing on one member of each household in the campus, men and women alike, should be educated how to make compost from the food waste, which eventually would help to increase in soil productivity and plant growth in their own gardens. Also, encourage people to harvest rainwater off roofs to minimise fresh water wastage for gardening.

As has been touched upon earlier, the obvious social role remains quite evident from the Alumni organisation. JEXCA Bangladesh medical doctors run two free clinics in two major cities for people who cannot afford to pay for their health care. JEXCA Bangladesh is also providing, among others, child sponsorship for some orphan children from the recent disaster of Rana Plaza garment factory collapse, provide humanitarian help for the flood (e.g. flood in 2007), cyclone (e.g. cyclone SIDR in 2007 & cyclone AILA in 2009) victims and financial support to the former JCC members (e.g. ex-teachers, ex-students and ex-member of staffs) who suffer from difficult illnesses. These are some of the outstanding works that have been carried out by JEXCA Bangladesh over the years. JEXCA UK and North America are also contributing to many aspects of social responsibilities by providing direct supports to JEXCA Bangladesh in order to act for the benefit of society at large. I look forward to more promising tale to tell – hopefully a lasting legacy to leave for the future generations in the social responsibility areas.

Finally, sustainability needs to be the top management agenda. JCC has the opportunities working towards a more sustainable future. Sustainability is here to stay, embrace it and let’s make it more visible.

Join the green industrial revolution

Our society is in the midst of an unprecedented transformation through the development of clean technologies (sometimes refers to green technologies or environmental technologies) that are more energy efficient and environmentally clean. Scholars such as Jeremy Rifkin and Nicholas Stern have predicted a new industrial revolution with a strong environmental connection based on green technologies and which I refer to in this as the ‘green industrial revolution’. Since green issues underpin almost every aspect of our lives, we hardly think or even notice that we are actually walking into the new era of green industrial revolution.

To understand the narratives of green industrial revolution, we should briefly touch upon the first and second industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution in 18^th & 19^th century brought profound changes to human civilisation. It concentrated primarily on producing goods and services, which we never experienced previously in human history. It was a transition from the rural economy (e.g. working on the land) to urban economy (e.g. manufacturing and commerce). Consequently, it had effects on socio-economic & environmental conditions not only in Britain but also in other countries around the world. Rapid industrialisation, urbanisation and increased fossil fuel consumption - particularly coal, had put huge damaging effects on the quality of the environment. This trend is still going on even in the present days.

The second industrial revolution, also known as the technological revolution merged with the first industrial revolution around 1850. According to the scholars, the second industrial revolution was usually dated between 1870 and 1914, where many of the important technological advances that took place for example, the growth of steel & chemical industry, expansion of the usage of electricity, replacing the steam powered engine by the internal combustion engine, increase agriculture productivity and food processing to mass production in the other sectors etc. However, environmental and ecosystem impact in the midst of such technological development were the least of people's concerns.

Today we are living in a world where environmental drive is not a romantic environmentalism anymore; rather it is a hard choice between collaboration versus confrontation with the earth's carrying capacity. While our world is facing growing environmental challenges, the green industrial revolution seems to be the driver for the green economic growth - where the economic growth and development have shared goals and effectively show a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

The journey towards building a sustainable future have already started and we don't need to go too far to see it. Let’s take the example of using mobile phones which we all desperately try to get hold of. It is remarkable to see how the usages of mobile phones have grown so fast in the last decade and it shows no slowing down. Just imagine the environmental impacts of these (millions and billions) of mobile phones going to the landfills for waste disposal at their end of life. It would be a tremendous waste of resources; in addition it would certainly increase negative impacts on the local environment. Producers of these mobile phones face continual pressure to increase productivity while lowering costs and having negative environmental impacts (in this case, particularly from their products). Under these circumstances, producers ought to look for more sustainable design innovation e.g. recycling product designs, reducing component size and weight and utilisation of biomass resources (e.g. plastics made from corn, sugar cane and wheat starch etc.) as raw materials.

It says when sustainability drives innovation, everybody wins. Pursuing a sustainable society would not be fulfilled without the development of innovative environmental technologies. Motorola, Nokia and Samsung all have handsets made from recycled plastic materials and it is compatible with their business growth, technological innovation and standing up for their commitments to sustainability. Mobile phone is just one example out of many. However, examples of clean technology are all around us. This includes green manufacturing (e.g. environmentally friendly products and processes), green chemistry (e.g. molecular level pollution prevention), renewable technologies (e.g. wind power, solar power, biomass, tidal energy, hydro-power etc.), energy efficiency appliances, lighting, recycling, green transportation, information technology and many more. All these clean technologies have made its presence visible in all aspects of our lives in both developed and developing countries.

Finally, the key factor for green industrial transformations is the advanced energy innovation, which would ultimately help create a green market economy and consequently create more jobs in the new green industries. Successful countries will be those who will embrace this transformation. It is claimed that the countries that will lead this green industrial revolution will be the leaders of 21st century. However, the concern is if this new technology remains in the hand of big corporations or countries then it will not benefit all the developing countries unless there is a level playing field. Also, introducing any new green technology into a social system without addressing the social questions of access to and who gets the benefits from it will raise some fundamental social inequality questions. We need to address the issues of inabilities of poor to afford these technologies otherwise the dream of a sustainable future will still remain a distant future.

World aims for a global climate change deal in 2015

On 11-22 November 2013, Warsaw hosted the United Nations Climate Change Conference. After days of intense negotiations, a long-sought global climate change deal seemed to be on the horizon. It has been a long and bumpy road for many years in the international negotiations of climate change. Finally the international community (almost 200 countries) managed to reach a consensus, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Perhaps, it is an optimistic view on the outcomes from the Warsaw negotiations compared to all other preceded climate change negotiations since its journey began in early 90s. But with a hopeless sigh, pessimists would more likely to argue that it’s 'too little too late' to stop global warming – ‘the chances of even slowing down got slipped out of our hands’. Whichever way we look at it, the reality is, whether we will have a deal in 2015 or not, we as a society need to prepare ourselves to face climate adversity and adapt to the inevitable consequences of the impacts of climate change.

Warsaw climate change conference ended with an appeal to all the countries working together towards a common goal to keep the world on the right track. All the governments are expected to work on a draft text for a new global climate change agreement. They will then be presented in the next ministerial-level climate conference in Peru and subsequently will formally be filled to reach a final agreement in Paris in 2015. All the countries decided to initiate their domestic preparations towards an agreement, which will come into force in 2020. In fact, countries will have some time to prepare themselves before they commit to a legally binding treaty. Technical support, advice and more frequent engagement with the ministers will be provided to those countries that would lag behind those in other countries in minimising CO2 emissions.

The general feeling that the Warsaw climate change conference was a successful one where all the countries agreed to carry forward the decisions, which were taken in 2011 in Durban Climate Change Conference (known as Durban Platform for Enhanced Action). The Durban Platform included an important message - all countries are to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015. In Warsaw however, for the first time all the countries have agreed to a timeline to achieve a universal legal agreement. It is undoubtedly a big step forward in securing the consequences of breaching carbon emissions thresholds.

Other main decisions adopted in Warsaw include for example, the Warsaw International Mechanism for ‘Loss and Damage’ against the extreme weather events in order to protect vulnerable population. The Green Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, the Warsaw Framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD Plus) - under the REDD Plus initiative, the latter has been backed by pledges of 280 million dollars in financing from the US, Norway and the UK.

Although some progress has been made, however a sense of failure and disappointment that drifted from it, is still hanging in the air. The outcomes on highly contentious issue ‘Loss and Damage’ were seen as avoiding the responsibilities of creating largest share of historical emissions by the industrial countries. It was proposed under the ‘Loss and Damage’ mechanism that the financial assistance would be provided to those countries that suffer from the severe weather. However all things considered, it was a very different stance what many of the developing countries had been asking for – to receive climate change compensation for the damage caused by global warming. I reckon the 'Loss and Damage' will remain to be a contentious issue in the upcoming negotiations.

I think climate change compensation is right on moral grounds but in reality it is very difficult to persuade some big countries when the total carbon emission of some emerging economies, including China, is overtaking the industrialised countries as the largest producer of greenhouse gases. Most of the industrialised countries are still trying to pull themselves out of 2008-09 global financial crisis. It is particularly unfortunate that the timing has been wrong to ask for any financial compensation. However, thankfully it was decided that the UN would set up a mechanism to deal with the 'loss and damage' caused by the climate impacts. Many critics would argue that the loss and damage mechanism was created without any real substance. Despite its ambiguous and rather shaky promises, I still think that it is small steps forward towards a new seed for future financial settlement.

However, we shouldn't claim the victory too early. In this kind of hard-bargaining negotiations where cracks between developing and developed countries could be widen any time in the coming months, particularly on the issues of ‘Loss and Damage’ and the ‘allocation of national greenhouse gas reduction responsibilities’.

In conclusion, the world aims for a global climate change deal but nothing will immediately get better for the poor and vulnerable families, communities or the countries. Maybe putting a cap on carbon emissions won’t stop global warming but having a global agreement is better than no agreement at all. Big polluters can individually declare war (like China did recently) on pollution but it will never work unless we have legally binding agreements, which eventually can lead to legal repercussions.

Fracking is not an alternative for the better

Over the past few years particularly in the UK, the debate around hydraulic fracturing or fracking has created huge controversy and brought wide-spread of public attention. Before the controversy kicked-in, the scientific understanding of fracturing and its impacts were not widely discussed among the general public, even though it has been routinely practiced by many oil and gas producing industries in the past. Fracking has been extensively used in-land for the past several decades in the U.S. Natural gas production from shale deposits in the U.S alone hit 230 billion cu m in 2012, nearly double 2010’s total, and the price of natural gas has fallen by over 80% since 2008 (B. Walsh in Time Magazine, September 16, 2013). Also, in the UK since late 1970s, fracking has been used in offshore North Sea oil and gas fields. However, the controversy is far from over; it is now spearheading the global debate on present and future energy challenges.

Fracking is a process that involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives deep into the Earth to target the shale rock formations to fracture, which subsequently result in releasing trapped natural gas. The mixture of fluid is extracted and the natural gas is collected through the well and stored for energy use. It sounds fairly simple and easy process to unlock the gas that has been trapped in the shale rock formations for millions of years. But, the entire process is not simple as it seems. The British anxiety recently exploded in Balcombe in West Sussex, which was the reflection of the risks that pose by the fracking techniques. Not only in Britain but activists from 26 countries around the world participated in around 250 protests on last 19th October 2013. Besides the technicalities of drilling or mining the natural gas, there are environmental and health effects to be considered, which have been the focal points of the whole argument.

There is a long list of potential environmental and health effects of fracking that can be listed, including the requirement of vast amount of water, backflow of waste water with the mixture of chemical additives and disposal of the waste water, fracking induced earthquakes, risk of ground water contamination,  risk of methane gas emissions, noise pollution, risk of soil contamination from the chemical spillage, health effects (of drilling, fracking, processing and transporting of natural gas) and the effects on local biodiversity etc. Some of the major concerns of fracking are the impacts on surface water, particularly where water is a scarce commodity, and also huge risks of possible groundwater contamination. In addition, most importantly are the risks from radiation exposure are often unheard (e.g. naturally occurring Uranium and its radioactive daughter Radium-226, also radioactive alpha emitting gas Radon-222 and its radioactive daughters Bismuth-214, Lead-210 and the alpha emitter Polonium-210). Deep down in the earth there are lot of radioactivity, which is safe for environment and human health but if they are brought to the surface, then it becomes some serious risks to human health, safety and to the environment. In the fracking process, waste water that returns to the surface very often contains radioactive materials.

Many American States e.g. Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas etc. had witnessed numerous environmental incidents primarily drinking water which is contaminated due to fracking. A new report by the Environment America Research and Policy Centre (October 2013) has reported that the fracking wells nationwide produced an estimated of 280 billion gallons of wastewater in 2012 - containing cancer-causing and even radioactive materials and has contaminated the drinking water sources from Pennsylvania and New Mexico. The overwhelming imbalances in use of fracking and the environmental incidents in America may have provided a false assumption that the fracking is environmentally safe. What is plausibly safe now (as proponents of fracking claim), which might not be safe in the longer run. Society is moving forward with the technological advancement faster than ever, which makes possible to do things that we couldn't do before, but often with far reaching consequences.

The fracking technology has been advanced considerably but there is no clean technology yet that exist which would make fracking process safer. Recently the UK Government has lifted the ban on onshore fracking, they planned not to outright prohibition of fracking, instead there will be more focus on the regulatory aspects. New regulations would be introduced to put tighter controls on fracking but it is very difficult to encourage local people as no one wants drilling sites in their backyards. Given the potential risks to the environment and human health, fracking should be kept desolate - more precisely it should not be allowed in-land. Technology may have advanced significantly but it cannot always beat the odds forever.

  

There is another dimension to the fracking issue. If it is allowed unanimously then we would potentially rapidly reach a point where many countries around the world would start similar practice. Many developing countries still lack of effective regulatory structures, decisions on fracking and that would require new regulations to protect the environment, human health and other social consequences. Otherwise fracking would be a subject to exploitation (e.g. lack of environmental & social responsibilities) by the domestic and international actors. Exploitation associated with the conventional crude oil drilling in the developing countries has been enormous in the past, which created in many cases inequalities and violent conflicts. It beggars belief that the benefits from resources extracted through fracking would be fairer to the indigenous and to the local communities.

It is divisive yet undeniable truth that we need a combination of mix energy sources to fulfil the current and future energy demand but more fracking would encourage more gas burning, which will eventually accelerate the rate of climate change. We should learn from our past mistakes, it would be totally wrong to go for mass in-land fracking. We don't need mass fracking to feed an energy hungry world.

   

What does 400ppm mean to us?

On 9 May 2013, 'The keeling curve' (named after geochemist Charles David Keeling), which plots the constant changes in atmospheric concentration of CO₂ at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, recorded the daily average concentration of 400.03 per-parts-million (ppm). For the same 24-hour period, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego recorded a reading of 400.08 ppm. Climate scientists say that for the first time in at least 800,000 years, the mean atmospheric concentration of CO₂ levels has surpassed 400ppm. It means that, for every million air molecules, 400 are carbon dioxide. It has come as no surprise to us that global carbon dioxide was bound to exceed the threshold sooner or later, given the fact that the world communities have repeatedly failed to slow down global CO2 emissions.

Since the monitoring began more than five decades ago at the Mauna Loa observatory, it had been well documented that the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ had increased from about 0.7 ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during 2003 to 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists pointed out thattoday’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended. Human activities are believed to be contributing more and more CO₂ concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. While our world has entered to a new danger zone, most people are wondering about why this milestone is so important.

400ppm is kept as a round easily remembered figure, which is a critical global threshold agreed in the Kyoto Protocol to avoid average global temperature rise more than 2°C. Creating a prehistoric climate would certainly have major repercussions. Increased CO2 mean increased global temperature and the impacts of increased temperature are already well known, marked in particularly by the biophysical consequences, for example stronger cyclones, increased coastal flooding, frequent droughts, fresh water scarcity and increased water salinity. These biophysical consequences will continue to affect people and their livelihoods, the whole economy across sectors and human development will suffer as a result of changing weather. Unfortunately, the poorer countries are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than the richer countries.

Sea level rise is unavoidable under a warming world due to the increased melting of world’s glaciers. Sea water intrusion, extreme tides and frequent storm surge in the low lying lands have already caused havoc in many coastal communities around the world particularly in the developing countries. Environmental migration is a reality now. People are forced to flee from their lands and sought shelter in the cities. Losing everything and trying to rebuild their lives all over again, have put enormous pressure on families to find jobs that would suit their skills, as well as finding decent and affordable homes. Unable to find the jobs and proper accommodations would naturally fuel the expansion of city slums. Such unsustainable urban growths would in turn step up the deterioration of local urban environment that would contribute further to urban poverty. This would contribute further to other social issues e.g. increased criminality and vandalism, poor public health, no education, increased child labour etc. Implications of these factors would incur huge additional financial costs upon the society, which is very difficult to assess as many consequences are not yet well understood.

Not all are bad news but there's good news too. What if climate change would turn Greenland green? Experts are now saying that climate change could turn Greenland green by 2100 (The Guardian, 28 August 2013). The lead scientist Professor Jens-Christian Svenning, from Aarhus University in Denmark said that the 'Greenland has the potential to become a lot greener - forest like the coastal coniferous forests in today's Alaska and western Canada will be able to thrive in fairly large parts of Greenland, for example, with trees like Sitka spruce and Lodgepole pine.' But what would happen with all the melting ice water? It will naturally flow down to the seas. Perhaps all good news will probably concentrate in the colder and richer parts of the world. People who lives in the colder regions will enjoy relatively warmer weather, possibilities of saving energy over time, will enjoy economic benefits from tourism and the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors will have the market potential and new commercial opportunities.

Green technological innovation will probably thrive in the richer world. Future technological changes will concentrate on super-efficient equipment and appliances, maximising recycling and resource efficiency, finding eco-friendly alternative energy sources, technological advances in climate change science and adaptation disciplines to find more adaptation options and performance of these options. It’s absolutely crucial that the green technological collaborations need to happen between rich and poor countries in order to combat a common enemy. It’s not going to help if the advances in green technologies only concentrate in the richer part of the world.

In the end, the atmospheric CO₂ emissions will continue to increase unless countries around the world take radical steps to stop the rising levels of CO₂ emissions. Chances are remote that it will happen sooner. Maybe five or ten years’ down in the line, Mauna Loa observatory will record the readings which would surpass another threshold value. But the fact of the matter underlying inequalities and vulnerabilities will still exist in hundred years from now if we do not adapt and prepare ourselves for our warming world.